memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:NCC-70637 shuttlecraft
Title? Shouldn't this article title be reserved for the actual ship where this shuttle is from (if we want an article about it), while this one gets moved to NCC-70367 shuttlecraft or something similar? Shuttles usually display the registry number of their "mother ship" and do not have their own registry number. The article even is worded so as not to imply that this is the case. --Cid Highwind (talk) 11:08, August 1, 2013 (UTC) :I am respecting the precedent set with NCC-71325. I am open to your suggestion; however, if we do that, shouldn't we do the same with NCC-71325?Throwback (talk) 20:31, August 1, 2013 (UTC) You are right, we should handle both articles the same way. I believe it would be cleaner to not name this article after the registry of (most likely) a different ship. But if we do, and imply that this is the registry of the shuttle itself, we shouldn't at the same time state that this shuttle was "assigned to NCC-70367” on pages like Federation shuttlecraft. --Cid Highwind (talk) 20:41, August 1, 2013 (UTC) :And "assigned to NCC-71325"?Throwback (talk) 06:25, August 2, 2013 (UTC) Yes. I assumed I wouldn't have to make my comments more complicated than they already are by adding "and the other one, too" every time. :) Anyway, the page title now has a capitalization issue (it should have been "shuttlecraft", not "Shuttlecraft") - and also, I believe that the "(starship)" disambiguation for the newly created articles (like NCC-70367 (starship)) are unnecessary. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 09:07, August 2, 2013 (UTC) ::When creating pages and moving pages, please take the time to update the incoming links. In my cleanup of this mess, it took me a while to figure out what links should go to which articles. -- sulfur (talk) 10:43, August 2, 2013 (UTC) Sulfur, I apologize for the mess I created.Throwback (talk) 13:58, August 2, 2013 (UTC) Redux In the HD version of the episode it is clearly visible that the thrid number of the registry is not a '3' but a '0'. Therefor this side should be re-named 'NCC-70067 shuttlecraft'. Ncc-1864 (talk) 22:00, December 9, 2013 (UTC) :Is that the best possible image? I'm not convinced that the 0 isn't a 3. They blur together. 31dot (talk) 22:20, December 9, 2013 (UTC) ::Unless the number was changed for the remastered version the third number is a 3, since we know the model wasn't labeled with two 0s, based on the bgnote on the page. - 04:51, December 10, 2013 (UTC) :::There is no indication that this number was changed (why should they care for such an insignificent scene?) and there is always the possibility that M. Okuda was not correct in his statement. Besides this I was under the impression that screen evidence should top secondary sources. Ncc-1864 (talk) 07:32, December 10, 2013 (UTC) ::If you zoon into the picture you can see that the third number looks more or less then the second one: There is no horizontal middle bar in the thrid number that you would need for a '3'. To me it is prety much NCC-70067. There are two other shots as well, and those two shoots show also no indication that the third number could be a three, though they are not as good as the one I uploaded. The only number that I'm not 100% sure is the forth: This could be also a '5', but for the moment I'm fine with '6'. Ncc-1864 (talk) 07:32, December 10, 2013 (UTC) :While it is true that what appears on screen takes precedence, if we cannot agree on what it says(or lack a statement on what the remastered appearance says) we should stick with what we had already(a statement from Okuda saying what it is). We would need hard evidence that he is wrong, not just the possibility. If you yourself concede that you don't know what the fourth number is, why are you right about the third? 31dot (talk) 09:36, December 10, 2013 (UTC) ::I took some time to analyse the registry once more and I have to admid that I cannot exclude the possibility of a 'three' anymore. I boxed the numbers with equidistant lines and the result is that the third number looks now more like a 'three', assuming that the middle bar is merged with the top and bottom bars, resulting in a thicker outline at the right side of the number. The fact that the 'box' is open on the left side is also in favour for the 'three'. Ncc-1864 (talk) 19:51, December 10, 2013 (UTC) Rename suggestion As it is now accepted that the shuttle was stolen from the , and that the registry NCC-70367 is a conflicting registry, shouldn't this page's title be reflective of this change? If so, should we change to NCC-70637 shuttlecraft or USS Galaxy shuttlecraft?--Memphis77 (talk) 12:18, November 17, 2019 (UTC) : The current name fits into our existing naming practices. --Alan (talk) 15:30, November 17, 2019 (UTC) :: I would rather trust Okuda that it was supposed to be the Galaxy and the hull markings were a VFX error, and not that the registry on the hatch was a set dressing error & it's an unidentified ship. Either is plausible though. -- Compvox (talk) 15:34, November 17, 2019 (UTC)